Steele v. Oklahoma State of et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 7 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 4/17/2017. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Case No. CIV-17-186-D
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint concerning his confinement in the
Cleveland County Detention Center, Judge Purcell recommends dismissing the action
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). Judge Purcell
also provides notice that the dismissal may constitute a “prior occasion” or strike pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff, who appears pro se and in forma pauperis, has neither filed a timely
objection to the Report nor requested additional time to object, although he was expressly
advised of the right to object, the deadline for objections, and the consequences of failing
to object. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff has waived further review. See Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 East
30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, upon de novo consideration
of the issues, the Court finds Judge Purcell’s analysis is correct. The Court thus concurs
in the recommendation for dismissal without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7]
is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). The dismissal shall count as a “prior occasion” or strike
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) after Plaintiff has exhausted or waived his right to appeal.
A separate judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?